An idea about connections

We have had numerous discussions over my time in the game about connections, and how to help newbies in the game.one of the problems I’ve seen has been dominant airlines in some countries, and little or no development in small countries that aren’t open markets. I once suggested that some airports should be upgraded to allow connections, as you can connect there in real life. The example I will use is YTZ. Before Porter came along there weren’t any connections there, but now there are, but only through Porter itself of course.
My suggestion would be to add a new Terminal type in the game. This Terminal would cost extra money, but would allow connections within the Terminal.
Of course, a new airline cannot support this construction, so a bigger player would have to build it for them. In order for an interline connection to work, both airlines would need to be using that Terminal. This would encourage a big player to help a newbie, in a sort of mentorship, and would allow that newbie a chance to learn the game mechanics in a small country, before trying to take on a bigger player, while also adding a small amount of extra realism.
I know I’d be willing to help a new player in this way.
Please let’s keep this a civil discussion.

1 Like

I think that in this case the better solution requires readjustment of where you can connect. Most airports with the label “connection not allowed” or whatever simply don’t have the infrastructure to connect, many people exit out and re-clear security (I do this a lot to get a cheap fare), yes, but that isn’t connecting for the sake of connections business wise. I don’t think anyone should be able to connect in that little town of 5,000 in Brazil, it just makes no sense.

Your model basically means any airport can be made connectible, when in reality many of the small airports simply can’t handle secure connections even if you built the infrastructure for it. I like the model where they can stay on the plane as that’s more realistic IMO, but beyond that it begins to fade its charm.

I think the best solution is simply to revise the list of where people can connect (YTZ) and where people can’t. I think maybe a crowd funding model to a certain degree could help here, for players that know certain geographies to be able to input where secure one-ticket connections can and do occur, as Simulogics does not have eyes in every single airport in the AS database to judge this feasibly.

I feel that also brings up the point of elitism, which I don’t think I am alone in saying it plagues the game, saying that the old ones need to help the new ones for the new ones to have any success. That I feel is both unrealistic and brings about a little of a “kiss-ass” attitude that I think we really don’t need any more of, especially in long term worlds saturated by experienced players. IMO this only raises the standard of entry for some, as it creates yet another place where money equals power. I know that is how it works IRL, but I feel like a game like this, especially with its need for new subscribers and to make more $$ for Simulogics to really restart to care about its player base (I don’t think that’s a hot take given recent events), does not need to be raising its barriers to entry, if you know what I mean.

I would like to know how you think that this will solve the problem of small markets. Almost every single country (if not all) has an airport that is connection open. I would in this case argue for the expansion of the FI list as I have a couple of times before.

I think you might have a good idea, but I don’t think it solves the problems you bring up.

Thank for a proper response, I was afraid this might go badly. You’re incorrect on your assumption about some of the airports, there are a number of countries that don’t have an airport with connections available. However, you did make some valid points. Personally, when I was new to the game, I would have gladly taken such an opportunity to learn the game mechanics, but to each his/her own.

You’re most certainly welcome. As some of you might tell, I am a person that believes in hearing everyone out. Now I might fully disagree with your point of view, but I still want to hear what you have to say and to give you a fair chance to argue your side.
This is a general belief of mine and not based on this case, by the way.

Wow. I would’ve assumed that every airport would have a connecting field, you may be right. Then the countries that don’t have it would become sort of a “useless traffic right” in some regard?

The elitism isn’t to downgrade the use of mentorships, I think they can be great for the right kind of person, but what I meant is that they should not be the only way to success. There must be room and hope for “independent” carriers to succeed as well. Now, I acknowledge that following existing plans is what usually happens IRL with new Airline launches (Looking at you, PLAY), but I don’t think this game will get any better if people are “required” to partner with a giant. They can if they want to, but they shouldn’t have to. If that makes sense.

I love the formality of this discussion. It gives me courthouse vibes.

In my opinion this idea is brilliant! Great one BJ! I don’t think partnering with a giant is necessary, rather this would be a way for airlines in smaller countries to expand after they have saturated their initial hubs. Take Oman for example. It has one airport with connections. When fully developed that airport can take about 250 planes (a bit more if you focus on long haul) but after that you have simply run out of slots at the connection capable airport. This factor makes players looking to have large carriers that will be competitive on a global stage (be on the top 20 rankings) not choose Oman.

If an already established player who has developed Muscat would be able to develop both SLL and OHS then he would more than double his size. Making him a more than 500 plane carrier. Salalah airport has just been rebuilt and has a big new terminal but even if it wasn’t I don’t think the authorities or the airport would have anything against if a private company would have wanted to build out the airport. Honestly, I don’t think any airport would object if a private enterprise comes in and does the investments that them themselves cant afford. My childhood home airport, KSD, would have been crying of happiness if an airline came there and developed a hub and paid for the airport upgrades themselves. KSD fought so hard just to get a couple weekly Ryanair flights. If an airline would offer 1000 departures per week you would see all the officials crying of happiness.

Regarding the elitism “problem”, I don’t think it exists. In the last 7 years I have built 3 large carriers on established worlds with no or very little help from established players. The nerfing and complete destruction of the private leasing market is a very stupid thing both for new players and for Simulogics revenue. That it all started after a leading team member was caught taking “too much” advantage of cheap leases is even weirder. Anyways, if you want to disregard the “elitism problem” then Talons idea can be changed that one only can build these connection terminals in countries where one has traffic rights. Thereby a big player can not build a connecting terminal for a small player in another country then one’s own.

For example, as a Russian carrier I could build a connection capable terminal in Vladivostok and thereby increase my far eastern presence ones I have saturated Khabarovsk. It seems like a realistic and straight forward thing to me. But I cant help my friend in Iceland and make RKV connection capable, he gotta do that himself.

1 Like